Floyds Fork Bacteria TMDL Andrea M. Fredenburg Kentucky Division of Water TMDL Section November 28, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
O Adopted in 1972, the CWA is known mostly to the public by its mandate for “swimmable and fishable” waterways. o With the CWA, states evaluate all of.
Advertisements

Fecal Coliform “Hot Spots” Monitoring Stacie Greco Senior Environmental Specialist Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.
TMDL Development Mainstem Monongahela River Watershed May 14, 2014.
TMDL Development for the Floyds Fork Watershed Louisville, KY August 30, 2011.
TMDL Development Upper Kanawha River Watershed August 18, 2011 WV DEP WV DEP Dave Montali.
Truckee River Water Quality: Current Conditions and Trends Relevant to TMDLs and WLAs Prepared for: Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility. City of.
Leona River Potential Loads and Sources for Bacteria and Nitrates Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research Stephenville, Texas June 4, 2013.
Bureau of Water Overview Wastewater issues Drinking water issues Wrap up topics.
TMDL Implementation in the Calleguas Creek Watershed Ashli Desai Larry Walker Associates.
Bureau of Water Program Overview Local Government Interest.
IDEM TMDL 101 Everything you wanted to know about Total Maximum Daily Loads.
Components of every Good Watershed Management Plan NDEQ – Planning Unit August 6 th, 2014 NDEQ – Planning Unit gust 6 th 2014.
April 22, 2005Chester Creek Watershed TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load Chester Creek University Lake & Westchester Lagoon Alaska Department of Environmental.
TMDL Development for the Floyds Fork Watershed Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Calibration and Water Quality Model Calibration Technical Advisory.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection November 6, 2014 Cabela’s Conference Room Wheeling, WV Upper Ohio North Tributary Watersheds Draft.
Approaches to Addressing Bacteria Impairments Kevin Wagner Texas Water Resources Institute.
Chowan River TMDL Development Raccoon/Sappony Area 09/8/04.
Impaired and TMDL Waterbody Listings Impacts on DoD Facilities Bill Melville, Regional TMDL Coordinator
GIS Tools for Watershed Delineation Public Policy Perspectives Teaching Public Policy in the Earth Sciences April 21, 2006 Gary Coutu Department of Geography.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation DRAFT SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) (GP )
TMDLs on the Clearwater River Fecal Coliform Impairment of the Trout Stream Portion of the Clearwater River By Corey Hanson Water Quality Coordinator Red.
Federal Clean Water Act Monitoring and assessments completed statewide Standards not met? Section 303 (d) requires placing the water body on the “Impaired.
Hillsborough River Fecal Coliform BMAP Process Oct. 22, 2008.
Brent Mason, Mackenzie Consoer, Rebekah Perkins BBE 5543 November 8, 2011.
Chowan River TMDL Development and Source Assessment Blackwater River Area October 25, 2004.
Working with Stakeholders in Developing Watershed and Water Quality Models: The Dos and Don’ts Well, at least some of them! Presented by: Brian J. Watson,
Lower Big Blue Watershed Draft Escherichia coli (E. coli) TMDL Stakeholder Meeting May 7, 2014.
Chowan River TMDL Development Tidewater Area 08/26/04.
Redwood River TMDL Critique David De Paz, Alana Bartolai, Lydia Karlheim.
Restoring Water Quality: Using Nonpoint Source Funding to Improve Water Quality for Recreation Brooke Shireman Kentucky Division of Water.
Big Raccoon Creek Watershed TMDL Stakeholder Meeting June 26, 2013.
Attachment B Water Quality Duration Curves for the Lower Eel River Watershed.
Pine and Mill Creek E. coli Stakeholder Meeting Pine and Mill Creek E. coli Stakeholder Meeting Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Bureau.
USGS Kansas Water Science Center
West Fork Whitewater River E. coli Water Quality Duration Curve (all sites) IDEM Water Quality Data & USGS Gage Stream Flow Data Upstream Drainage.
Staci Goodwin Senior TMDL Project Manager Office of Water Quality
Water Quality Monitoring in the Upper Illinois River Watershed and Upper White River Basin Project Brian E. Haggard University of Arkansas.
Bacteria and Dissolved Oxygen Total Mass Daily Load Development for the Atascosa River Jessica L. Watts.
Deep River-Portage Burns Watershed TMDL Stakeholder Meeting March 13, 2013.
Lake Independence Phosphorus TMDL Critique Stephanie Koerner & Zach Tauer BBE 4535 Fall 2011.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection August 6, 2014 Moorefield City Hall South Branch Potomac & Shenandoah Hardy Watersheds TMDL Status.
TMDLs on the Clearwater River Fecal Coliform Impairment of the Trout Stream Portion of the Clearwater River By Corey Hanson Water Quality Coordinator Red.
Chowan River TMDL Development and Source Assessment Nottoway River Area October 28, 2004.
Kentucky Growth Readiness for Water Quality Does your water quality matter?
Critique of North Branch of Sunrise River TMDL Nate Topie and Taylor Hoffman.
Watershed and water quality assessment of the Allen’s Creek watershed David A. Tomasko, Ph.D. Cheryl Propst, M.S. May 16, 2012.
Fecal Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) in 4 Austin Watersheds Presented to the City of Austin Environmental Board November 7, 2012.
Chowan River TMDL Development and Source Assessment Tidewater Area October 20, 2004.
Skokomish River Fecal Coliform TMDL Attainment Monitoring in Washington State George Onwumere, Ph.D National Monitoring Conference, San Jose, California.
Chowan River TMDL Development Blackwater Area 09/07/04.
A quantification of groundwater seepage during drought and its importance for water quality modeling in the St. Vrain watershed Hannah Chapin Thomas Gerber.
STREAM MONITORING CASE STUDY. Agenda  Monitoring Requirements  TMDL Requirements  OCEA Initial Monitoring Program  Selection of Parameters  Data.
OHIO EPA UPDATE ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
Chowan River TMDL Development Nottoway Area 08/31/04.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection August 31, 2011 Ravenswood High School Middle Ohio South Watershed TMDL Status Update Meeting.
Floyds Fork Bacteria TMDL Andrea M. Fredenburg Kentucky Division of Water TMDL Section February 19, 2013.
Volunteer/State Partnerships Inspire Grassroots Action Cheryl Snyder Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Commonwealth of Virginia Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs Four Mile Run Public Meeting #1 June 14, 2001.
Improving Austin Streams: An Implementation Plan for Total Maximum Daily Load Allocations in 4 Austin Watersheds Chris Herrington, PE Manager, Water Resource.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL for Four Mile Run
Mulberry River Watershed
VIRGINIA’S TMDL PROCESS Four Mile Run Bacteria TMDL March 25, 2002
Elm Creek Watershed TMDL E. coli TMDL – Review of Preliminary Findings
Total Maximum Daily Loads Development for Holdens Creek and Tributaries, and Pettit Branch Public Meeting March 26, 2008.
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): An Overview of TMDLs in Texas
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program in Illinois
Bacteria Loadings Watershed Model:
Requesting Final Approval of the 2011 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan My name is Melanie Williams and I’m here today to request final approval.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): An Overview of TMDLs in Texas
Presentation transcript:

Floyds Fork Bacteria TMDL Andrea M. Fredenburg Kentucky Division of Water TMDL Section November 28, 2012

Goals Present watershed information Present TMDL calculations Provide example for one stream segment Vote on options for path forward to public notice

KY’s Bacteria Criteria Summer PCR Limit (May 1 - Oct. 31)SCR Limit (year round) Bacteria Geometric Mean (colonies/100 ml) Maximum (colonies/100 ml) Geometric Mean (colonies/100 ml) Maximum (colonies/100 ml) Fecal coliform 200 (from 5 samples collected within 30 days) 400 (number not to be exceeded in more than 20% of the samples) 1000 (from 5 samples collected within 30 days) 2000 (number not to be exceeded in more than 20% of the samples) E. coli 130 (from 5 samples collected within 30 days) 240 (number not to be exceeded in more than 20% of the samples) No criterion (this does not mean that any number is safe; rather that KY regulations do not tell the safe limit ) No criterion (this does not mean that any number is safe; rather that KY regulations do not tell the safe limit )

Monitoring Data 319 (h) funded—Currys Fork and Bullitt Co. MSD Historical KDOW data EPA funded—USGS data collection

Currys Fork WBP Sites (2007, 2009) Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (400 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) CF CF CF NC NC1a NC1b NC SC SC TB TB1a

Bullitt County WBP Sites ( ) Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (400 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) BB BB BL BL BR BR CC CC CR FF FF TB TB WR WR

MSD Sample Sites ( ) Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (400 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) ECCCC EFFCR EFFCR EFFFF EFFFF EFFFF EPRPR

KDOW Sample Sites ( ) Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (400 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PRI SRW Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (240 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) PRI

USGS Sample Sites ( ) Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (240 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) AR CANE CF FF FF FF FF FF LR LR NFCF PL PL PL SFCF SFCF SLR

USGS Sample Sites ( ) Station Name# % Exceeding WQC (240 col/100 ml) Min (col/100 ml) Max (col/100 ml) Ave (col/100 ml) CC CR CR CR FF FF FF JTOWNSTP PR

Bacteria Impaired Segments 18 impaired stream segments –18 E. coli PCR –4 Fecal coliform PCR –4 Fecal coliform SCR 26 listed waterbody/pollutant combinations

Floyds Fork Bacteria Impairments Waterbody NamePollutantCountyImpaired Use Ashers Run 0.0 to 4.8E. coliOldhamPCR Ashers Run 0.0 to 4.8Fecal coliformOldhamPCR Cane Run 0.0 to 7.3E. coliJeffersonPCR Cedar Creek 4.3 to 11.1E. coliJeffersonPCR Cedar Creek 4.3 to 11.1Fecal coliformJeffersonPCR Chenoweth Run 0.0 to 5.25E. coliJeffersonPCR Chenoweth Run 0.0 to 5.25Fecal coliformJeffersonPCR Chenoweth Run 0.0 to 5.25Fecal coliformJeffersonSCR Chenoweth Run 5.25 to 9.2E. coliJeffersonPCR Chenoweth Run 5.25 to 9.2Fecal coliformJeffersonPCR Chenoweth Run 5.25 to 9.2Fecal coliformJeffersonSCR Currys Fork 0.0 to 4.8E. coliOldhamPCR Floyds Fork 0.0 to 11.7E. coliBullittPCR Floyds Fork 11.7 to 24.2E. coliJeffersonPCR Floyds Fork 24.2 to 34.1E. coliJeffersonPCR Floyds Fork 34.1 to 61.9E. coliShelbyPCR Floyds Fork 34.1 to 61.9Fecal coliformShelbySCR Long Run 0.0 to 9.9E. coliJeffersonPCR North Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.0E. coliOldhamPCR Pennsylvania Run 0.0 to 3.3E. coliJeffersonPCR Pennsylvania Run 0.0 to 3.3Fecal coliformJeffersonSCR Pope Lick 0.0 to 2.1E. coliJeffersonPCR Pope Lick Creek 2.1 to 5.5E. coliJeffersonPCR South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1E. coliOldhamPCR South Long Run 0.0 to 3.35E. coliJeffersonPCR UT of South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 1.8E. coliOldhamPCR

Floyds Fork Bacteria Impairments

Potential Sources KPDES-permitted sources to WLA Others to LA

Sanitary Wastewater Systems

MS4 Entities

KNDOPs

Sewer Lines* *Information Not Available for Jefferson County

Sewer Lines* *Information Not Available for Jefferson County

Septic Tank Suitability

Land Cover

TMDL Calculation Example South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1 E. coli PCR impairment SFCF-2 USGS sample site

South Fork Currys Fork

TMDL Equation TMDL (allowable # per day) = Allowable Concentration (allowable # per 100 ml) x Flow (in cubic feet per second) x Conversion Factor (24,465,758.4 per day) Conversion factor is figured as 1 cubic foot = ml and 1 day = seconds 1 x 1 cubic foot x ml x seconds = 24,465, ml second 1 cubic foot 1 day 1 day

SFCF-2 Sample Data USGS Site IDDate Discharge (cfs) E. coli (colonies/ 100 ml) SFCF-25/23/ SFCF-26/11/ SFCF-26/25/ SFCF-27/17/ SFCF-27/31/ SFCF-28/14/ SFCF-29/6/ SFCF-210/16/ SFCF-210/24/ SFCF-26/10/ SFCF-26/23/ SFCF-27/16/2008 <4 SFCF-27/31/ SFCF-28/19/ SFCF-29/23/2008 >1000 SFCF-210/2/ SFCF-210/9/ SFCF-210/16/ SFCF-210/23/

Convert Gage Flow to TMDL Site Flow Gage Date Flow at Gage (cfs) 7/27/ /28/ /29/ /30/ /31/ /1/ /2/ /3/ /4/ /5/ Flow at sample site = Acres of land draining to sample site ÷ Acres of land draining to gage site x Flow at gage Sample Site SFCF-2 Acres Gage Acres Flow at sample site = 4672 acres ÷ acres x 233 cfs Flow at sample site = 21.3 cfs

Site SFCF-2 TMDL TMDL = Allowable Concentration x Flow x Conversion Factor TMDL = 240 E. coli colonies per 100 ml x 21.3 cfs x 24,465,758.4 per day TMDL = 125,068,956,900 E. coli colonies per day TMDL = 1.25E+11 E. coli colonies/day

Segment TMDL Segment TMDL = Site TMDL x Acres at downstream end of segment ÷ Acres at site Sample Site SFCF-2 Acres South Fork Currys Fork at RM 0.0 acres Segment TMDL = 1.25E+11 E. coli colonies/day x 5949 acres ÷ 4672 acres Segment TMDL = 1.59E+11 E. coli colonies/day

TMDL and Flow TMDL = Allowable Concentration x Flow x Conversion Factor TMDL ≈ Flow Sample Load = Sample Concentration x Flow (on sample day) x Conversion Factor

Load Duration Curve

Source Areas

TMDL Allocations TMDL = ∑WLA + ∑LA + MOS Explicit MOS is 10% of TMDL Segment TMDL = 1.59E+11 E. coli colonies/day MOS= 1.59E+11 E. coli colonies/day x 10% MOS= 1.59E+10 E. coli colonies/day South Fork Currys Fork

SWS-WLA SWS-WLA = Allowable Concentration of Bacteria (#/100 ml) x Facility Design Capacity (Design Flow in cfs) x Conversion Factor (24,465,758.4/day) Permit #Facility Name Maximum Allowable Limit for E. coli (colonies/100 ml) Facility Design Capacity (cfs) Conversion Factor (1/day) SWS-WLA (E. coli colonies/day KY Green Valley Apartments ,465, E+08 KY Lakewood Valley ,465, E+08 KY Lockwood Estates Subdivision ,465, E+08 KY Centerfield Elementary ,465, E+07 KYG Gibson Residence ,465, E+06 Total subwatershed SWS-WLA 1.68E+09 South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1

Remainder Remainder = TMDL – MOS – ∑SWS-WLA South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1 Remainder = 1.59E E E+09 Remainder = 1.42E+11 E. coli (colonies/day)

MS4-WLA MS4-WLA = # Acres of Developed Land in MS4 ÷ # Acres in Subwatershed x Remainder For South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to acres of developed land in the MS acres in the subwatershed Remainder = 1.42E+11 E. coli (colonies/day) South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1 MS4-WLA = 754 ÷ x 1.42E+11 MS4-WLA = 1.80E+10 E. coli (colonies/day)

Future Growth WLA Percent Developed Area in the Subwatershed Future Growth WLA Percentage ≥25%5% ≥20% – <25%4% ≥15% – <20%3% ≥10% – <15%2% ≥5% – <10%1% <5%0.5% Future Growth-WLA = Future Growth WLA Percentage x Remainder South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to acres of developed land acres of land in the subwatershed. Percent Developed Area = (754 ÷ = 12.68%) Future Growth WLA Percentage = 2%, Remainder = 1.42E+11 Future Growth-WLA = 2% x 1.42E+11 E. coli (colonies/day) Future Growth-WLA = 2.83E+09 E. coli (colonies/day)

LA ∑LA = TMDL - MOS - ∑WLA South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to 6.1 TMDL = 1.59E+11 MOS = 1.59E+10 ∑ SWS-WLA = 1.68E+09 MS4-WLA = 1.80E+10 Future Growth-WLA = 2.83E + 09 ∑WLA =2.25E+10 ∑LA= 1.59E+11 – 1.59E+10 – 2.25E+10 ∑LA= 1.21E+11

The TMDLs and Allocations E. coli PCR Fecal coliform PCR Fecal coliform SCR

E. Coli PCR TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL (colonies/ day) MOS (colonies/ day) SWS-WLA (colonies/ day) Future Growth- WLA (colonies/day) MS4-WLA (colonies/day) LA (colonies/ day) Asher Run 0.0 to E E E E E+10 Cane Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+10 Cedar Creek 4.3 to E E E E E E+11 Chenoweth Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+12 Chenoweth Run 5.25 to E E E E E E+10 Currys Fork 0.0 to E E E E E E+11 Floyds Fork 0.0 to E E E E E E+13 Floyds Fork 11.7 to E E E E E E+13 Floyds Fork 24.2 to E E E E E E+13 Floyds Fork 34.1 to E E E E E E+13 Long Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+10 North Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to E E E E E E+11 Pennsylvania Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+09 Pope Lick Creek 0.0 to E E E E E E+11 Pope Lick Creek 2.1 to E E E E E E+11 South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to E E E E E E+11 South Long Run 0.0 to E E E E E+09 UT to South Fork Currys Fork 0.0 to E E E E E+10

Fecal Coliform PCR TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL (colonies/ day) MOS (colonies/ day) SWS-WLA (colonies /day) Future Growth- WLA (colonies/ day) MS4-WLA (colonies/ day) LA (colonies/ day) Asher Run 0.0 to E E E E E+09 Cedar Creek 4.3 to E E E E E E+10 Chenoweth Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+11 Chenoweth Run 5.25 to E E E E E+11

Fecal Coliform SCR TMDLs Waterbody Name TMDL (colonies/ day) MOS (colonies/ day) SWS-WLA (colonies/ day) Future Growth- WLA (colonies/ day) MS4- WLA (colonies/ day) LA (colonies/ day) Chenoweth Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+12 Chenoweth Run 5.25 to E E E E E E+12 Floyds Fork 34.1 to E E E E E E+11 Pennsylvania Run 0.0 to E E E E E E+12

Vote TAC review/comments prior to public notice TAC review/comments concurrent with public notice

Contact Information Andrea M. Fredenburg TMDL Section Division of Water 200 Fair Oaks Lane Frankfort, KY